Links

On April 22, 2016 – under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”), the Respondents sent a request regarding our matter with the BCSC. As per their FIPPA’s policy, a person requesting the information has to send it directly to the agency that would have the records – in this case the BCSC.

We sent it directly to email address foi-privacy@bcsc.bc.ca as the BCSC website dictates. On April 26, 2016, we received confirmation of our letter being received by Michelle Cook (who has a big fancy title – the Assistant Secretary to the Commission/Office of the Chair):

As you see in this letter, the writer indicates that “law” allows for 30 days for them to reply to our request and that we could expect a reply on (or before) June 6, 2016.

It is now 8:30 PM PST and the Respondents have yet to receive a reply to our FOI request – how is this even possible? How can Staff at the BCSC breach the FIPPA Act without consequences or without notifying the Respondents of any delay?

We have 3 additional request into the FOI Staff at the BCSC and we certainly hope that they govern themselves under the laws of the FIPPA Act! This includes a FOI request that is due on June 9, 2016.

The BCSC is NOT above the law and formal complaints will now be sent to the FIPPA Commissionaire outlining our concerns. It is time the people at the BCSC wake up and become accountable for their lack of attention to detail – this reminds us very much of the investigation and hearing process a couple of years ago….

The wrong date on the Notice of Hearing;

Typos in Investigator Chan’s notes that they relied upon during the hearing;

Wrong name typed into Will-Statement that the Respondents were to rely on;

WILL THE FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC OR DCF EVER SEE ANY OF THEIR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT EVER AGAIN?

ANSWER:

We are not sure – the BCSC has pretty much made it impossible for the Respondent to obtain work in the province of British Columbia. The Manitoba Securities Commission has already held a hearing and issued an order very similar to what the BCSC did. The Alberta Securities Commission (and other jurisdictions across Canada) will more than likely duplicate the orders as well. We are fine with not raising capital in the securities market as it does not have the best interest of the people.

Facts are the Commission was premature in branding the Respondents a multi-million dollar fraudster and by indicating we lied to them under oath during questioning. When potential employers look at this they are not exactly going to be lining up to offer employment. With no employment, we will not be able to pay money towards the disgorgement order. And bear in mind the absolute pathetic policy by the BCSC that even if I happen to pay funds towards the disgorgement, investors will have to wait 3 years to apply to get their money back – Yes, you need to apply to them to get your money back. Again their policy is found on their website at:

We argued as part of our Submissions on Sanction that we did not want this to take 3 years for the investors – in fact, we argued that if we ever come across substantial monies, we would like the ability to pay the investors back WITHOUT the involvement of the BCSC:

When and if we are able to, we intend to pay each and every one of the former investors back their investment into my companies BEFORE we pay a dollar towards the $500,000 fine implemented by the BCSC. Whether this happens or not depends on where (and if) we land back on our feet. It is one thing to have the Respondents out of the securities market, but when they make it physically impossible for a person to obtain work we start to question what their motives behind their actions really take into account.

As of today, we have yet to find employment despite applying for several jobs in the area. As we pointed out in our Submissions on Sanction, we did obtain a tremendous job offer on February 10, 2015 paying over $130,000 per year – the Panel issued their Findings document document on February 11, 2015 and the job offer was rescinded approximately 1 week later.

This is just anther reason why we feel it was so unfortunate that the optimistic Settlement Offer (presented to the BCSC) should have, at the least, been explored by Staff at the BCSC. The property in now doing very well as the real estate market has exploded in the last few months in Chilliwack. This was by far, the best opportunity for investors to re-coup monies lost in the FCC and DCF offerings. It is time to find out WHY Staff at the BCSC did not even enter into negotiations with the Respondents when so much was at stake for the former investors.

I encourage ALL former investors in FCC and DCF to call the BCSC at 604-899-6500 and ask them. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS and represent your rights in the securities market and as such, they must answer you!

The hearing into our matter started on April 7, 2014 – on March 24, 2014 (only 2 weeks earlier), Staff sent correspondence to numerous investors in FCC and DCF asking for them to fill out an Investor Impact Statements (“IIS”). Along with this request, in many instances investors were sent links to the very slanderous press release where the Respondents were wrongly accused of not advancing the majority of the funds to the Developer – some $5.45 million dollars.

The problem with sending the IIS in March was the Respondents had not even stepped foot in the hearing room – and we would like to have thought we were innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around!

And the problems with the IIS statements as a document are many – first of all there is NO disclaimer indicating the allegations have yet to be proven. The document literally using wording such as “the offence” and “the securities violation” in their questions. This is PRE-LOADING an investors response – putting it in their minds that the Respondents committed the allegations. Take a look:

Imagine your being an investor who had just been told that someone you placed money with had committed a $5.45 million fraud, bought his wife a grocery store, and had personal vehicles restored – and then being asked to fill out a document asking you how you felt? Many of the IIS we received were very one-sided with angry language. We must admit, we would feel the same way if we only knew half of the story or were told untruths by the government regulator.

There is NO reason to do this before the hearing – there are many days/weeks/months to obtain them after the Findings document was made public by the Panel. Speaking of the Panel, we argued in our written submissions that there should be little to no weight put on the IIS for the very reasons outlined in this blog. What did they think?

We were pleased they agreed with us! But it just shows again how strong Staff at the BCSC thought their case was against the Respondents when it was not. It’s items like this that really show the pathetic methods used at the BCSC to make the playing field very un-level.

Only a couple of weeks before the extremely expensive hearing began at the Commission, we again tried to settle with Staff at the Commission. Staff Litigator Paige Leggat again indicated the ONLY way she would consider taking the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director was IF I agreed to all allegations in the Notice of Hearing and pay a fine and disgorgement of $5.8 million.

This was the final straw and ended up costing the Investors any participation in the real estate project that was part of the Settlement Offer.

WHY WOULD THE COMMISSION (WHO’S MANDATE IS TO HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE BC CAPITAL MARKET) NOT EVEN DISCUSS WITH THE RESPONDENTS THIS OFFER?

The wording in these latest emails is comical – Leggat has the gall to imply that “we” had been in settlement negotiations for the last few months. This is absurd – she blocked EVERY attempt the Respondents made to settle and bring something back to the table for the investors in FCC and DCF.

This is YOUR regulator people! Call them and find out why they did not even enter into discussion with the Respondents – Call 604-899-6500 and ask for someone to explain this to you!! Unfortunately you cannot ask for C. Paige Leggat as she miraculously resigned shortly after we accused her of manipulating evidence in the Executive Director’s Written Submissions on Liability! Maybe you could ask for the Director of Enforcement at the time – Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks – oh sorry, you can’t – she was terminated in November 2015 under what seems to be mysterious circumstances to say the least.